Introduction

Ethical issues occur especially in the case where there are codes of conducts expected from the stipulations of the company such as in the case of Kerry, Nunez, and Hellman who are each caught in a situation of ethical conflicts. Ethical dilemmas are also referred to as moral dilemmas; they are the situations where there needs making a choice from two options, and neither of them resolves the situation in an ethical fashion. Nunez breaks the company’s code of ethics by holding a corporate meeting on a social media platform which exposes the company to financial risks. Kerry being the partner in the field is faced with a conflicting decision of reporting Kerry for breaking the company’s policies while Hellman as the team leader is caught up in a similar dilemma. Kerry gets the contract completed, and they are all looking forward to the bonus, and the company shall benefit greatly. However, on the other hand, the move was risky and requires action. There are several ethical and personal dilemmas presented in the case study that needs to be addressed.

Ethical Dilemmas

Self-Centered Decision-Making

The first ethical dilemma in the case study is a self-centered decision-making dilemma. Decision making is the process of making a decisive and conclusive idea that could lead to greater benefits for the company. This entails the aspect of being fast thinking and being capable of doing things independently with the aim of achieving the company’s objectives. In the case study, Nunez had to seal the contract with the new client, but they were faced with a transportation delay. Nunez had to ensure that the deal could not slip past the company’s reach due to the delay and started engaging with the client on Twitter. Nunez knew this was wrong but deemed the move as the most decisive as per then and started the meeting with the client which was driven by the core self-interest of getting the bonus.

The aspect of being confused between which moves to adopt entails the ethical dilemma that struck Nunez. On the other hand, Kerry realized of the irregularity and warned Nunez, however, with a further consideration she realized that the deal would be sealed and they would all benefit and moved along with the idea amidst the conflicting situations. Finally, Hellman the team leader learned the deal had gone through and could not decide what would be the best move. Hellman was not sure if he would report Nunez to the management or just let it pass since the contract was sealed. These situations show aspects of decision-making dilemmas for the three parties where they were caught in a situation that needed a conclusive decision, but none had the final and a conclusion that they deemed appropriate.

Transparency and Accountability

Transparency is mostly associated with accounting entries while accountability is the general responsibility of the employees. Transparency also entails the honesty on the various business engagements within the company and starts with the employees. Being accountable is the situation where the employees are responsible for their actions (Ferrell & Fraedrich, 2015). In the case study, transparency and accountability is a major ethical issue. Nunez was familiar with the company’s policies and the possible implications that could arise from the engagement of the client via Twitter however he ignored wherein this case this was a lack of accountability. Kerry, on the other hand, was also aware that this move by Nunez could have major implications for the company but moved along with the idea without the incentive of reporting to the team leader Hellman who would, in turn, feel obliged to stop Nunez. This was an act of lack of transparency and accountability since Kerry ignored and hoped Hellman would act. Finally, Hellman was caught up in the same dilemma since he was not sure if he would report the infractions to the management. Transparency would have been the case where either Kerry or Hellman took the incentive of stopping Nunez without giving priority the financial benefits that would result. This is because if the transaction fell onto the attention of the wrong party, then the company was headed towards a financial downfall. This aspect of ignorance and assumption showed the lack of accountability in the three parties.

Compliance and Governance Issue

Compliance and governance entail observation of the company’s code of conduct and policies put in place. It is stated that dissemination of proprietary information to parties that are not part of the contract was against the company’s policies. However, with the aim of getting the contract and the bonus, Nunez went ahead and conducted a meeting with the client on Twitter. Kerry took the initiative of correcting Nunez but thought to get the contract was better since it would get them the bonus. The two failed to comply with the company’s policies and governance leading to a potential financial risk. This led to putting Hellman in a compromising situation since he failed to respond to the illegality from the moment Nunez started the Twitter conversations with the client. This is a major ethical issue since the employees of the company failed to observe some of the essential ethical measures in the company.

Personal Issue

Negligence was one of the personal ethical issues shown in the cases study where Nunez used the Twitter feed to chat with his friends and at the same time conduct the contractual completion with the client on the same platform. This was a high act of negligence since he failed to observe professional courtesy despite having already overlooked a series of ethical measures.

Ethical Categories

There are three main categories of ethical theories that include; utilitarianism, deontology, and relativism. The above three mentioned ethical issues can be attributed to their respective theories since they were all aimed at the achievement of a common objective but differently manifested (Lesna-Wierszolowicz, 2012). Decision-making dilemma can be attributed to utilitarianism where this theory seeks to implement choices that are fair to all the parties involved and involves decision making on what is the best approach that provides fair results to all the parties. Kerry, Nunez, and Hellman all were faced with a decision-making crisis on the step to take, but since the client agreed to the contract, then this would get the parties their bonus and the company’s image would be enhanced.

Deontology is the theory that contests that there is need to act in accordance with the obligations and responsibility when faced with a choice. The aspect of transparency and accountability was overlooked by the three parties because they had to act as per the choices that were present in the conditions. The actions were out of line, but they were done for the greater good and the benefit of everyone including the company.

Relativism argues that moral obligations and beliefs are based on aspects of the individual environment. This can be used to explain the aspect of compliance and governance where this ethical issue was overlooked. As per Kerry, Nunez was on the wrong conducting the meeting with the client on Twitter, but on the other hand, Nutez saw nothing wrong with the move and contested that provided the client sealed the deal then that was all that was necessary. Relativism tries to explain how conflicting aspects do not always predict the uniformity in conducting business for companies or among the company’s staff.

Applying Theories

Self-Centered Decision Making

Bentham; argues that pleasure determines the standard of value where everything that leads to pleasure can be considered to be good while those that lead to pain are bad. Therefore he supports that adoption of decisions should be based on most pleasure and less suffering (Shaw & Barry, 2015). Therefore, Bentham would discourage this decision as it would hurt the company more than it would benefit.

Kant; argues that duty is the core standard for morality and that if something is right or can lead to the right destination, then it is totally right. This means that Kant would encourage this ethical dilemma.

Rand; argues that life can be termed as the standard of value and therefore there should be a distinction of actions that are either good or bad for them. Rand would have discouraged this ethical dilemma since it posed more risk to the life of the company than the assumed benefits.

Transparency and Accountability

Bentham; would have discouraged this ethical dilemma since it stood to be more of a danger to the company than any form of benefit arising.

Kant; would have discouraged this dilemma since it contested against the concept of moral competence and lack of accountability and transparency was totally wrong.

Rand; would have discouraged this dilemma since the actions were bad from the point of inception.

Compliance and Governance

Bentham would have discouraged the dilemma since there was a lack of compliance with the policies which went against the objectives of the company.

Kant would have discouraged the dilemma since it was opposite of the aspect of moral competence among the employees.

Rand would also have discouraged the dilemma since the lack of compliance to the set governance stood to be more of a risk for the company.

Reflection

Kant would have solved the dilemmas best since he considers that duties make up the standard of morality. This means that the three employees should have considered the policies and the risks associated towards the life of the company before coming to any conclusion. Kant’s theory would have provided a well-inclined ruling for their decisions, and the company would not have faced the unnecessary risk.

References

Ferrell, O. C., & Fraedrich, J. (2015). Business Ethics: Ethical Decision making & cases. Nelson Education.

Lesna-Wierszolowicz, E. (2012). The importance of ethics in business. Folia Pomeranae Universitatis Technologies Stetinensis. Oeconomica, 298(69), 39-48.

Shaw, W. H., & Barry, V. (2015). Moral issues in business. Cengage Learning.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?